1. Abstract Method
Results
Tables
Compliance tells the story of a real-life Milgram experiment in which strip-
search scams were perpetrated in USA fast-food restaurants. A pilot study was
carried out to explore the appropriateness of the film for the classroom.
Participants (12 females, 8 males) viewed a video lecture about Milgram’s research
and a video that showed one obedient and one disobedient individual in the
original Milgram research. Excerpts of the film Compliance were then shown.
Participants answered questions about their knowledge of the obedience to
authority research and their reactions to the film on a web-based questionnaire.
Participants who were more knowledgeable about Milgram’s research and the
Compliance film (100%, n = 6) were significantly more likely to endorse use of
the film than the less knowledgeable participants (43%, n = 14), p < .04 (FET).
Results suggest that substantive instruction on obedience to authority is a
prerequisite to using Compliance in the classroom.
Procedure
After providing informed consent, participants responded to questions on
a Survey Monkey electronic questionnaire.
Pre-Video/Lecture Assessment. In order to assess knowledge about the
obedience to authority research, participants were asked to rate how
knowledgeable they were about Milgram’s research and how valuable they thought
it was for understanding obedience to authority in everyday life. Ratings were
given on 7-point Likert scales ranging from “not at all” to “very”. They answered
the following questions presented in a True, False, or Don’t Know format:
The participants in Milgram's research were told that they were
participating in a study of the effects of punishment on learning. They were
assigned to play the role of a Teacher and they were ordered to give shocks to the
Learner or Victim for their mistakes. The shocks ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts
maximum. The Teachers thought the shocks were real, although they were not.
The participants in Milgram's research were ordinary people.
The participants in Milgram's obedience to authority research were willing to
administer shocks to a victim because people feel less responsible for their actions
when they are under the orders of a legitimate authority.
Milgram's study on obedience to authority showed that situational factors were
more important than ethical factors in causing obedience to the orders of the
experimenter.
Milgram investigated how situational factors affected the Teacher's willingness to
shock the victim. When the Teacher and Learner were placed in separate rooms so
that the Teacher couldn't see the suffering of the Victim, the Teacher was more
likely to administer higher voltage shocks.
Video/Information on Obedience to Authority. The participants viewed a short
film clip by Zimbardo on The Power of The Situation (Annenberg Learner, 2001)
about Milgram’s research, followed by an extended clip showing one disobedient
and one obedient participant in the film of the original obedience experiment
(Milgram, 1965). Next the participants were provided with further information
regarding Milgram’s research:
In the experimental condition shown in the video, Milgram found that two
thirds of the participants obeyed the experimenter by administering shocks to the
learner up to 450 volts. When Milgram asked 40 psychiatrists from Yale University
Medical School to predict what percentage of participants would obey the
experimenter, they said that only one in a thousand participants would be likely to
follow the orders of the experimenter by giving 450 volt shocks to the learner. The
psychiatrists were so inaccurate in their prediction because the psychiatrists
assumed that participants would follow their conscience and refuse to harm the
learner. The psychiatrists thus failed to take into account the pressing nature of the
situation and the power of the authority to get people to obey even when they are
asked to do something that goes against their moral principles - especially the
principle that we should not harm innocent individuals.
The findings of Milgram's research on obedience to authority show that situational
factors can be powerful influences on our behavior. Milgram's studies on
obedience demonstrated this by experiments in which he varied the closeness of the
Teacher to the victim:
If the teacher didn't hear the victim receiving shocks in another room, 65% obeyed
by giving 450 volt shocks.
If the Teacher heard the voice and screams of the victim, 62% went to the
maximum.
If the Teacher saw the suffering victim in the same room, 40% went to the
maximum.
It the Teacher had to put the hand of the victim on a shock plate, only 30% went to
the maximum.
The findings of Milgram's studies on obedience to authority have been
replicated all over the world. And recent research that duplicated Milgram's
studies of obedience yielded the same findings - high rates of obedience that vary
depending on specific features of the situation. The findings of Milgram's research
have also been used to understand real life examples of people going along with,
or not challenging, an authority who tells them to do something that is wrong.
Examples of this include nurses obeying a doctor's order to administer a
dangerous dosage of a drug, airplane crashes caused by commercial co-pilots who
failed to challenge a pilot making serious flying errors, and ordinary German
citizens becoming involved in the murder of Jews by the Nazis.
Post Video Information Assessment. Participants then were asked to re-rate on
7-point Likert scales how knowledgeable they were about Milgram’s research and
how valuable they thought it was for understanding obedience to authority in
everyday life. Participants responded a second time to the five knowledge
questions about the obedience to authority research.
Pre-Assessment of knowledge about Strip-Search Scam. The participants
indicated on a 7-point likert scale how familiar they were with the strip-search
scams perpetrated at fast-food restaurants in the USA. Participants answered Yes
or No about having seen the Compliance film.
Introduction to Viewing Compliance. Prior to viewing the film, the participants
received the following instructions: In the strip-search scam, a con man posing as
Officer Daniels calls a Manager (Sandra) of a fast food restaurant seeking urgent
help with a case of employee theft at the restaurant. He asks the Manager to hold
the woman in a rear room where she would be strip-searched by her and a fellow
employee. Over the next several hours, the 18 year old female employee was
subjected to a series of sexually degrading activities under the orders of the con
man posing as a police officer. The film, Compliance, dramatized this real life
strip-search scam perpetrated at a McDonald's restaurant in Kentucky.
Annenberg Learner. The Power of the Situation, 2001,
http://www.learner.org/series/discoveringpsychology/19/e19expand.html.
Bertrand, Wes (2007). Logical Learning: the process of noncontradictory
integration. Logicallearning.net. Retrieved from
http://www.logicallearning.net/obedience.html.
Bohler-Muller, N. (2013, January 14). Compliance: The Uncomfortable
Reality of Docile Bodies. Criticallegalthinking.com. Retrieved January 14,
2014, from http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/01/14/compliance-the-
uncomfortable-reality-of-docile-bodies.
Burger, Jerry M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey
today? American Psychologist, 64 (1), 1-11.
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals (2009) McDonald’s
Corporation v. Louise Ogborn, Donna J. Summers, and Kim Dockery
(Action No 04-CI-00769).
Comstock, Jonah (2012). Milgram Revisited: Craig Zobel’s “Compliance”.
Psychology Today.
De Vos, J. (2009) ‘Now That You Know, How Do You Feel? The Milgram
Experiment and Psychologization’, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7,
223-246.
Elms, A. (1995) Obedience in Retrospect. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3),
21-31.
Greenwald, G (2012, August 27). The Perils of Blind Obedience to
Authority. FOCUS. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/13143-focus-the-perils-of-
blind-obedience-to-authority.
Milgram, S. (1965). Obedience film. University Park, PA: Penn State Audio
Visual Services [distributor].
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London:
Tavistock.
Miller, A.G. (1986). The obedience experiments: a case study of
controversy in social science. New York: Praeger.
Navarick, Douglas J. (2012) Historical Psychology and the Milgram
Paradigm: Tests of an Experimentally Derived Model of Defiance Using
Accounts of Massacres by Nazi Reserve Police Battalion 101 The
Psychological Record, Vol 62(1), 133-154.
Reiter, E. (1996) Making fast food: From the frying pan Into the fryer.
Canada: McGill--Queen’s University Press.
Wolfson, A. (2005, October 9). A hoax most cruel: Caller coaxed
McDonald’s managers into strip-searching a worker. Courier-Journal.com.
Retrieved September 19, 2013, from http://www.courier-
journal.com/article/20051009/NEWS01/510090392/A-hoax-most-cruel-
Caller-coaxed-McDonald-s-managers-into-strip-searching-worker.
Wolfson, A. (2006, February 3). Bullitt man pleads guilty in strip-search
case. Courier-Journal.com. Retrieved August 3, 2013, from
http://www.courier-
journal.com/article/20060203/NEWS01/602030386/Bullitt-man-pleads-
guilty-strip-search-case.
Zobel, C. (Director). (2012). Compliance [motion picture].
Zimbardo, Philip, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People
Turn Evil (New York: Random House, 2008)
Table 1
Percentage of correct and incorrect answers on knowledge questions about obedience to authority research.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre- Lecture Answers Post Lecture Answers
__________________________________ __________________________________
Naïve Group Knowledgeable Group Naïve Group Knowledgeable Group
n = 14 n = 6 n = 14 n = 6
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Question Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect
_______ ______ _______ ______ _______ ______ _______ ______ _______
1 57% 43% 100% 0% 93% 7% 100% 0%
2 64% 36% 83% 17% 76% 24% 100% 0%
3 64% 36% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
4 71% 29% 100% 0% 86% 14% 100% 0%
5 60% 40% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
In his famous experiments on obedience, Milgram (1974) demonstrated
that ordinary people are vulnerable to obeying an authority who tells them to do
something harmful to an innocent person. Milgram’s results on obedience have
been replicated in countries all over the world, including a recent study in the USA
that produced comparable rates of obedience (Burger, 2009; Zimbardo, 2008).
The findings of Milgram’s research have also been used to understand real life
examples of people going along with, or not challenging, an authority who tells
them to do something that is wrong (Navarick, 2012). The strip-search scams
perpetrated in 70 fast-food restaurants in the USA are a recent and disturbing
example of susceptibility to an anonymous authority’s demands (Zimbardo, 2008).
In the strip-search scams, a con man posing as a police officer calls an Assistant
Manager of a restaurant seeking urgent help with a case of employee theft at the
restaurant (Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2009). He asks the
Manager to hold a young employee captive and stripped-searched. Over the next
several hours, the employee was subjected to a series of sexually degrading
activities under the orders of the con man posing as a police officer (Wolfson,
2005, 2006).
The controversial film, Compliance (2012), tells the story of one of the
real life strip-search scams that occurred at a McDonald’s restaurant in Kentucky
(Comstock, 2012; Wolfson, 2005). In this incident, which was captured on close
circuit video, a man calling himself, Officer Daniels, orders the Manager, Sandra,
to detain and isolate Becky, an 18 year old employee accused of stealing, in a rear
room of the restaurant (called Chickwich in the film) so that she can be strip-
searched to find the stolen money. The film portrays events that in actuality
unfolded over a period of several hours (Bohler-Muller, 2013). During the ordeal
shown in the film, Becky is stripped and subjected to a series of sexually
degrading and humiliating acts, including cavity searches, spanking, and sexual
assault. All the orders are given over the telephone by the con man who speaks to
Sandra, the Assistant Manager, Marti and Kevin, two employees, Van, Sandra’s
fiancé, and Harold, the Chickwich maintenance man. Sandra, Marti, and Van all
comply with the con man’s orders. The ordeal is finally ended only when the
restaurant maintenance man, Harold, is ordered to search Becky and told by the
supposed police officer that he must do it because it “isn’t your choice.” Harold
responds, “like hell it isn’t.” His adamant refusal spurs Sandra to call her regional
manager and the horrific reality of the hoax is revealed (Compliance, 2012).
There are significant parallels between the strip-search hoax (Compliance,
2013) and the laboratory research on obedience (Milgram, 1974). From the outset,
Milgram’s research on obedience stirred considerable controversy, criticism, and
debate (Miller, 1986). Both the results and the procedure were subjected to attack
(DeVos, 2009). Some found his research so disturbing that they rejected the
results on the grounds that participants did not believe that the shocks were real
(Elms, 1995). Reactions to Compliance have been similarly intense, audience
members responding with anger, disbelief, and outrage, and in some instances
leaving the theater in disgust (Bohler-Muller, 2013; Comstock, 2012)). Despite the
disturbing nature of the film, the story of the strip search scam offers a compelling
extension of Milgram’s research to a real life situation (Reiter, 1996). In order to
assess its appropriateness for the classroom, a pilot study was carried out to
explore student perceptions of the film and its value for understanding the
psychology of obedience.
For this analysis, participants were divided into two groups based on
knowledge about the obedience to authority research and whether or not they had
previously seen the Compliance film. The 6 participants who had previously seen
the complete film comprise the Knowledgeable group, and the 14 participants who
had not seen the film are the Naive group. Results showing participants’ Pre and
Post Lecture answers to the knowledge questions in Table 1 are consistent with
dividing participants this way. As shown in the Table, the Knowledgeable group
had correct answers to all the questions except for question 2 in the Pre-Lecture
(83% correct). In contrast, the results for the Naïve group show a higher rate of
Pre and Post-Lecture errors than the Knowledgeable group. Of note, Table 1
shows that the naïve group improved performance on the questions after the
lecture, video, and informational material. The participants answers to the ratings
of their knowledge about the obedience to authority and its value are also
congruent with results in Table 2 that show the Naïve group’s change in their pre
and post ratings for knowledge (M = 3.8 vs. M = 5.1) and perceived value (M =
4.2 vs. M = 6.0).
Participants’ views on the appropriateness of using Compliance in the
classroom are shown in Table 3. There it can be seen that both the
Knowledgeable (M = 5.8 vs. 6.8) and Naïve group (M = 4.3 vs. 5.5) rate the film
as more appropriate for college vs. high school students. It can also be seen that
the Knowledgeable group’s ratings for its use and enhancement of knowledge
about obedience are consistently higher than the Naïve group’s. Most importantly,
answers to the Yes/No question about recommending using video clips of
Compliance to teach students about obedience to authority showed that the
Knowledgeable group (100%) was significantly more likely to endorse use of the
film than the Naïve group (43%), p < .04 (FET).
Discussion
References
Although limited by the small sample, the findings suggest substantive
instruction about the obedience to authority research is required before using
Compliance in the classroom. Differences in explanations for employees
going along with the strip search speaks to the importance of in depth
instruction. In this regard, the causes cited by knowledgeable participants
reflect a nuanced view of the fast-food industry and training of its
employees. This is in contrast to those less knowledgeable about the social
psychology of obedience who focused primarily on the authority holding
power and control. How best to enhance students’ knowledge and
understanding of the influence of situational factors on obedience is an
important topic for future research.
Table 3
Mean ratings for appropriateness of the Compliance film.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Group Appropriate for High School Appropriate for College Enhanced Knowledge
_____ _______________________ ___________________ __________________
M sd M sd M sd
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Knowledgeable 5.8 .98 6.8 .40 6.6 .51
n = 6
Naïve 4.3 2.0 5.5 1.4 5.3 1.5
n = 14
Total 4.8 1.8 5.9 1.3 5.7 1.4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2
Mean ratings for knowledge and perceived value of obedience to authority research.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre- Test Post- Test
___________________________ _____________________________
Knowledge Value Knowledge Value
__________ __________ __________ __________
Group M sd M sd M sd M sd
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Knowledgeable 6.5 .54 6.8 .41 6.3 .82 6.8 .41
n = 6
Naïve 3.8 2.28 4.2 2.66 5.07 1.14 6.0 1.18
n = 14
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Post Test About Compliance Film. After the participants viewed the film they
were asked the following questions pertaining to the movie:
1. Assignment of Responsibility for Strip-Search Scam
When thinking about the causes or reasons for the occurrence of the strip search
scam as shown in the film, please rate the importance of each of the following for
causing the strip-search. Please assign a number between 0 to 100 to each cause,
with a higher number indicating greater importance as a cause. Your total must be
equal to 100.
Con Man posing as Officer Daniels
Sandra, the Manager
Marti, the Employee
Kevin, the Employee
Becky, the Employee
Van, Sandra's Fiance
Fast-Food Restaurant Setting
Employee Training for the Fast Food workers
Other
2. In your own words, please explain why you think the fast- food employees
complied with the orders of Officer Daniels to confine and strip-search the young
woman.
3. Please explain why Becky complied with being strip-searched.
4. After viewing the clips of the film, Compliance, how much do you think it
enhances your understanding of obedience to authority in real life situations?
5. Please rate how appropriate the film about the strip-search scam is for showing
in a high school classroom to teach students about Obedience to Authority. Please
explain your answer.
6. Please rate how appropriate the film about the strip-search scam is for showing
in a college classroom to teach students about Obedience to Authority. Please
explain your answer.
7. Would you recommend using clips of Compliance in classrooms to teach
students about obedience to authority? Yes or No - Please explain your answer.
Method
Method
Participants
A total of 20 volunteers (12 females, 8 males) were solicited by
undergraduate students from a northeastern Catholic college for participation in a
social psychology investigation. They ranged between 18 and 67 years of age, with
a mean of 26.4 years and a median of 21 years. There were 17 undergraduates (2
freshman, 2 sophomores, 2 juniors, and 11 seniors) and 1 college graduate, 1
graduate, and 1 postgraduate. Religious affiliation of participants was as follows:
14 Catholics, 2 Protestants, 2 agnostics, 1 atheist, and 1 described as other. Of the
undergraduate participants, 7 were psychology majors, 6 were from other arts and
sciences majors, 1 was from nursing, and 3 were from business.
Figure 1 Assignment of Responsibility for The Strip Search
Results
Figure 1 shows how each of the two groups assigned responsibility for the strip-
search. The pattern of these results shows that both the Knowledgeable and Naïve
groups assigned most of the responsibility to the con man (58.33% and 45%) and
to Sandra, the manager, (20% and 30.7%) than to all other causes. Of additional
note in Figure 1, while the causes for the strip search were dispersed across all of
the people involved in the strip search, the Knowledgeable group assigned 10.7%
of the responsibility to Employee Training and the Fast-Food restaurant setting
compared to the 3.7% assignment given by the Naïve group to these situational
causes. Answers to the open ended question about why the employees complied
illustrate differences in causal attributions.
Knowledgeable Group
I believe that the highly cog-in-the-machine like environment caused the people to
think of themselves as less responsible. The uniforms they wear make them less
individual and the general environment of work at a fast food place makes
employees feel deindividuated. I also feel that the orders of "officer Daniels",
along with the promises he made led the employees to feel that the situation was
out of their control and not their responsibility.
The employee complied due to lack of training for that particular situation in part,
but primarily due to the idea of an authority figure giving them commands was
primarily the reason.
They are trained to take orders.
Results
Naïve Group
They complied because he claimed to be an authoritative figure and he
assured everyone that he would be the only one taking responsibility.
They complied because a person of authority told them to. People were
brought up not to disrespect authority. He gained their trust and control.
There is power in administration, because Officer Daniels was believed to be
in a higher position of power than any of them, he had persuaded them that it
was their only choice to comply with his demands.